saratoga medical

14
SARATOGA MEDICAL ASSOCIATES Saratoga Springs, New York Site Sponsor: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority HEALTH CARE FACILITIES Portfolio Demonstration and Evaluation of Lighting Technologies and Applications Lighting Case Studies Volume 3 Issue 3

Upload: 18926119

Post on 08-Nov-2015

221 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

saratoga

TRANSCRIPT

  • Lessons LearnedMedical patients may have higher priorities than the appearance of lighting.Despite the fact that the new lighting in the reception and waiting area followed guidelines

    recommended by lighting professionals such as removing the cave effect, increasing

    illuminance uniformity, and decreasing shadows on the floor, there was only a slight

    improvement in the patients perceptions of the space.

    For people who perform high stress tasks, such as doctors andnurses, the lighting of the task is more important than the lighting of the space.Before designing lighting for a space, it is important to determine the visual difficulties of

    the tasks people have at hand. Doctors and nurses found it difficult to carry out some

    tasks in an examination room, although they found the lighting useful for other activities

    such as treating patients suffering from migraines.

    Flexibility is valued in spaces where there are a wide variety of visual tasks.Both doctors and nurses commented on the value of having dimming available in the

    examination rooms, which enhances the flexibility of the lighting.

    Lighting specifiers should assess the occupants satisfaction about a space prior to implementing a lighting retrofit.Occupants will resist change if their level of satisfaction about their environment is high,

    regardless of whether the lighting conforms to what may be considered better lighting

    practice by lighting professionals.

    DELTA Portfolio, Lighting Case StudiesVolume 3, Issue 3Community Care PhysiciansSite Sponsor: New York State Energy

    Research and Development Authority(NYSERDA)

    Equipment Donors: Edison Price; FocalPoint; Selux

    December 2001Program Director: Sandra VsconezEvaluation Leader: Peter BoyceProject Assistants: Jennifer Brons, Carlos InclnReviewers: Russ Leslie, Mark ReaEditor: Julie BlairTechnical Assistance: Jean Paul Freyssinier, Zengwei Fu,

    Francisco Garza, Chao Ling, Milena Simeonova, John Tokarczyk

    Illustrations: John Tokarczyk

    CREDITSCommunity Care Physicians: Robert Kleinbauer,

    Facilities Manager; Lil Kirkpatrick, Office AdministratorNYSERDA: Marsha WaltonArchitect: COTLER Architecture & Planning, PCElectrical Contractor, New Installation: A. R. Fogartys

    Add Electric Inc.Lighting Design: Lighting Research Center Luminaire Manufacturers: Types A, D, F: Focal Point;

    Types B, C: Edison Price; Types E, I: Alkco; Types G, H: Selux

    Occupancy Sensor: The Watt StopperWallbox Dimmers: Ariadni ControlsDELTA Portfolio Graphic Design and Production:

    The Type & Design Center, Inc.Photographers: Randall Perry Photography (interior);

    Carlos Incln (exterior)

    DELTA MEMBERSConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.New York State Energy Research and Development

    AuthorityNortheast Utilities SystemLighting Research Center

    For publications ordering information contact:

    Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy, New York 12180-3590(518) 687-7100e-mail: [email protected] www.lrc.rpi.edu

    Copyright 2001, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Allrights reserved. Neither the entire publication nor any ofthe information contained herein may be duplicated orexcerpted in any way in any other publication, database, orother medium and may not be reproduced without expresswritten permission of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.Making copies of all or part of this publication for any pur-pose other than for undistributed personal use is a violationof United States copyright law.

    ISSN 1075-3966 Printed on recycled paper

    14

    Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical AssociatesHealth Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Lighting Research Center

    SARATOGA MEDICAL ASSOCIATESSaratoga Springs, New York

    Site Sponsor: New York StateEnergy Research andDevelopment Authority

    HEA

    LTH CARE FACILITIES

    PortfolioDemonstration and Evaluation of Lighting Technologies and Applications Lighting Case Studies

    Volum

    e 3Issue 3Photometric Measurements

    DELTA performed illuminance and luminance

    measurements for all spaces after the lighting

    had been on for at least 30 minutes and the

    luminaires were operating at full light output. For

    the doctors office, these measurements were

    taken with the blinds closed on both windows. In

    the examination room with the window, no blinds

    were available. Illuminance and luminance

    measurements were made during the day with

    the electric lighting both on and off, in order to

    show the contribution of the electric lighting

    alone.

    Surveys Questionnaires were used to obtain patients

    opinions about the lighting in the reception and

    waiting area. DELTA collected questionnaires

    from 60 patients for the original lighting and 84

    patients for the new lighting. Structured inter-

    views were used to obtain the opinions of doc-

    tors, nurses, and receptionists.

    Energy AnalysisTo analyze annual electrical cost savings,

    DELTA interviewed the buildings facilities man-

    ager, who estimated hours of use and reported

    energy rates charged by the local utility.

    Multiplying daily hours of use by 50 weeks per

    year (DELTAs assumption) yielded just over 2600

    annual hours of use. These hours were multiplied

    by the wattages of both the original and new

    lighting. These calculations excluded examina-

    tion task lights, as these are used only when

    needed.

    DELTA compared these energy use estimates

    with ASHRAE-IESNA 90.1 (1999) standard power

    densities for lighting in hospital/health care build-

    ings (space-by-space method). These LPD

    values were multiplied by the total area of the

    rooms and the hours listed previously.

    Subsequent electrical cost savings were calcu-

    lated using actual rates charged to the facility of

    7.3 per kWh and a monthly demand charge of

    $8.32 per kW (assuming the lighting is on at the

    point of peak monthly building demand).

    Environmental AnalysisDELTA based the environmental impact figures

    in the table on page 11 on the U.S.

    Environmental Protection Agencys September

    1996 publication, Conservation News Online.

    This document is available online at

    http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/.

    AbbreviationsAbbreviations mentioned in this report include:

    LPD = Lighting Power Density

    ASHRAE = American Society of Heating,

    Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

    Engineers, Inc.

    IESNA = Illuminating Engineering Society of

    North America

    MethodologyThis section gives details about testing methods and assumptions used in this publication.

    Lighting Research Center13

  • 2 11

    Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Lighting Research Center Lighting Research Center

    Specifications

    Lighting Research Center

    2 Project ProfileLighting Objectives

    3 Lighting and Control Features3 Reception and Waiting Area

    Contents

    In 1999, Saratoga Medical Associates moved into their new suiteof medical offices on the third floor of a modern building in

    Saratoga Springs, New York. The suite contains a reception and

    waiting area, doctors offices, examination rooms, nurses stations,

    treatment rooms, and administrative offices.

    Patients arrive to the reception and waiting area; then meet with

    nurses or doctors in the examination rooms. Nurses have worksta-

    tions and the doctors have private offices.

    DELTA conducted an evaluation of the existing lighting in five

    spaces within the suite: the reception and waiting area, one nurses

    station, two examination rooms, and one doctors office. DELTA

    then installed and evaluated new lighting in those same spaces.

    This publication provides the results of the two evaluations.

    Lighting Objectives for New Lighting Provide good visibility and visual comfort

    Enhance visual appeal

    Eliminate the need for supplementary lighting in the reception

    and waiting area

    Utilize energy-efficient technologies

    Allow flexibility of light levels in the examination rooms

    Project Profile

    Project Evaluation6 Examination Rooms

    8 Nurses Station

    10 Doctors Office

    11 Project Evaluation12 Specifications13 Methodology14 Lessons Learned

    A

    B

    C

    D

    E

    F

    G

    H

    I

    MaintenanceBallasts failed in several different

    luminaires at a rate that was greater

    than expected. DELTA checked the

    wiring of luminaires in the building.

    Although one failure was caused by

    wiring problems in a luminaire, no

    clear reason was found for the rest of

    the ballast failures.

    To meet the lighting objectives, the

    new lighting required the use of differ-

    ent types of luminaires and lamps. The

    facilites manager did not consider it a

    problem to stock multiple lamp types.

    Occupant ResponseSaratoga Medical Associates moved

    to their new building two years ago,

    and were generally satisfied with the

    original lighting. They thought it was an

    improvement over their earlier facility.

    Staff liked the new installations occu-

    pancy sensors, examination lights and

    undercabinet lights, but some people

    thought there was too much light in

    waiting area and not enough light in

    exam rooms. The new condition did

    increase the lighting power density to

    a slight extent overall, but there was a

    slight increase in satisfaction as well.

    Energy ImpactThe lighting systems in both the origi-

    nal and the new installations use less

    energy than the maximum standards

    delineated in the energy standard

    ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 (1999). Excluding

    any use of examination lights, these

    systems save $320-470 per year due to

    reduced energy costs and power

    demand in the five rooms alone (see

    chart at right). The savings would be

    greater if occupancy sensors and dim-

    ming were taken into account.

    Environmental ImpactReduced energy use will result in

    lower annual power plant emissions

    (see table below).

    Reduced Pollution Compared to System Operating at ASHRAE/IESNAMaximum Lighting Power Density

    SO2 NOX CO2lbs kg lbs kg lbs kg

    Annual savings, Original 32 14 12 5 4,645 2,109

    Annual savings, New 22 10 8 4 3,196 1,451

    Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is associated with visible pollution (haze) and acid rain. Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are one of the main causes of ground level ozone (smog) and acid rain. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a possible contributor to future climate changes such as global warming.

    $0

    $100

    $200

    $300

    $400

    $500

    $600

    $700

    $800

    ASHRAE/IESNAMaximum Allowance

    SMA New

    Potential Demand Charge

    Energy Cost

    Annual Lighting Energy Cost Comparison Saratoga Medical Associates (SMA)

    $470 Annual Savings

    $320 Annual Savings

    $900

    $1,000

    Annu

    al E

    nerg

    y Co

    st

    SMAOriginal

    Doctors opinionsIn an interview, the doctor occupying the office expressed the view that the original lighting was not bright enough on a

    cloudy day. The new lighting, in turn, did not seem as bright to him during the day, compared with the original lighting.

    However, the new lighting seem much brighter after dark, and he appreciated this fact. DELTA believes that the room appeared

    that much brighter because the new luminaires provided light not only to the task area but to the walls and ceiling as well. He

    also liked the occupancy sensor because it made him feel that he was saving energy.

    Doctors Office Area Total LPD* ASHRAE/IESNA* NY State Energy Conservation (ft2) (W/ft2) Allowed LPD Construction Code 1991**

    (W/ft2) (W/ft2)Original lighting 100 0.9 1.5 2.4

    New lighting, without occupancy sensor 100 1.2 1.5 2.4

    Energy Analysis

    * See Abbreviations on page 13** Applicable in New York State only, on a whole-building basis

    1 ft2 = 0.093 m2; 1 W/ft2 = 10.76 W/m2

    Recessed indirect luminaire, white finish

    with perforated steel shields and white

    acrylic diffusers, 2' W x 4' L (610 mm x

    1.2 m), two linear fluorescent lamps in

    cross section.

    Lamps: (2) F28T5/835

    Ballast: Electronic, program start

    ballast, high power factor (HPF)

    Wattage: 62 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Recessed lensed wall washer,

    7" aperture (180 mm), with two compact

    fluorescent lamps in cross section.

    Lamps: (2) CFT18W/G24d/835

    Ballast: Electronic ballast, rapid start

    (RS), HPF

    Wattage: 38 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Recessed lensed downlight luminaire,

    7" aperture (180mm), with two compact

    fluorescent lamps in cross section.

    Lamps: (2) CFT13W/GX23/830

    Ballast: Magnetic ballast

    Wattage: 33 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Ceiling-mounted indirect/direct lumi-

    naire, 1' W x 4' L (300 mm x 1.2 m),

    with two linear fluorescent lamps in

    cross section within a perforated shield

    and dimming ballast.

    Lamps: (2) F32T8/835

    Ballast: Dimming electronic ballast

    Wattage: 67 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Wall-mounted, swing-arm examination

    luminaire, white finish, 4'-2" (1.3 m)

    extension reach, with 7' (2.1 m) cord

    and plug.

    Lamps: (1) 60A19 and (1) FC8T9/830

    Ballast: (Information not available)

    Wattage: 82 W, total (excluding ballast

    wattage)

    Ceiling-mounted indirect/direct

    luminaire, white powder coat finish, 2'

    W x 2' L (610 mm x 610 mm), with three

    linear fluorescent lamps in cross

    section within perforated shield and

    dimming ballast.

    Lamps: (3) F17T8/835

    Ballast: Dimming electronic ballast

    Wattage: 50 W per 3-lamp dimming

    ballast

    Ceiling-mounted luminaire with white

    acrylic diffuser, 16" diameter (410mm),

    4" (102 mm) projection below ceiling.

    Lamp: (1) CFS28W/GR10q-4/835

    Ballast: Electronic program start, HPF

    Wattage: 29 W per 1-lamp ballast

    Pendant direct/indirect luminaire, white

    finish, 8" W x 4' L x 2.5" D (200 mm x

    1.2 m x 60 mm), steel cable suspension

    system with coiled power cord, two linear

    fluorescent lamps in cross-section.

    Lamps: (2) F28T5/835

    Ballast: Electronic, program start, HPF

    Wattage: 62 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Under-cabinet luminaire, white finish

    with prismatic acrylic diffuser, 1.5" D x

    3' L (40 mm x 0.9 m), one linear fluores-

    cent lamp in cross section, with integral

    rocker switch.

    Lamps: (1) F25T8/835

    Ballast: (Information not available)

    Wattage: 25 W (excluding ballast

    wattage)

    12

  • 3Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Lighting Research Center

    Lighting and Control Features of New Lighting Visibility and Visual Comfort. Evenly spaced downlights above the reception counter provide uniform illumination

    adequate for tasks such as filling out small-print medical forms. Ceiling-mounted indirect luminaires in the examination

    rooms provide uniform diffuse illumination, which reduce shadows and veiling reflections. These luminaires also conceal the

    view of the lamp and prevent direct glare for the patient. Pendant direct/indirect luminaires in the nurses station and doc-

    tors office deliver light to the ceiling and walls to help minimize excessive brightness differences between the lower and

    upper parts of the rooms.

    Visual Appeal. Recessed wall washers in the reception and waiting area deliver light to the walls, making the space lookbrighter and more attractive.

    Eliminate the Need for Supplementary Lighting. Recessed wallwashers and recessed indirect luminaires in the waitingarea provide sufficient of ambient illumination and eliminate the need for additional lighting from table lamps or torchieres.

    Energy-efficient Technologies. Linear and compact fluorescent lamps with electronic ballasts are used in most luminaires. An occupancy sensor in the doctors office switches off lamps when the office is unoccupied.

    Flexibility. The lighting in the examination rooms can be dimmed. A separate, wall-mounted examination light is also available.

    Reception and Waiting Area

    A few of the regular patients were impressed. One said Wow! Weve got new lighting in here, eh?

    A receptionist, describing patients reactions

    A lot better. A lot brighter. Before we used to have table lamps in there.

    The elderly always used to have to sit next to the table lamps. Now patients can see their books when theyre waiting.

    Now you never see anybody near the table lamps.

    A receptionist, about the new lighting in the waiting area

    The lights are too bright and hard at the edges.

    A patient, about the new lighting in the waiting area

    The first space people encounter upon entering the SaratogaMedical Associates suite is the reception and waiting area. This

    area is a windowless room, with the reception counter located at

    the opposite end from the entrance door. Most of the walls have

    light green vinyl wallpaper (60% reflectance), and the floor is

    covered with blue-green carpet (10% reflectance). The waiting

    area is furnished with a set of Chippendale style chairs in the

    center of the space, a television, a few small paintings, and

    magazines on small side tables.

    See page 12 for Specifications

    A B C

    NORTH

    New Lighting

  • 4Lighting Research Center

    Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    20 cd/m2 (12)

    35 cd/m2(31)

    19 cd/m2 (15)

    21 cd/m2 (22)

    34 cd/m2(103)

    25 cd/m2 (15)

    3400 cd/m2

    175 cd/m2

    27 fc(10)

    42 fc(33)

    26 fc(31)

    22 fc(44)

    34 fc (26)

    Reception and Waiting Area (continued)

    Perspective of reception and waiting area(Measurements of original lighting shown inparentheses. Original luminaires shown inblack dashed lines.)

    Original lighting: reception and waiting area Recessed 2' x 2' and 2' x 4' parabolic luminaires. In the

    reception area, the luminaires provided plenty of light onsome parts of the reception desk, as well as brightpatches on the wall behind the counter. Unfortunatelythese bright patches did not correspond to the decorativeelements on the wall.

    Incandescent torchiere and table lamps (not shown in photograph). The parabolic luminaires that minimizereflected images on computer screens are commonlyinstalled in offices where computer use is widespread. In the reception and waiting area, the light distribution fromthese luminaires made the walls and ceilings appear dark,giving an impression of gloom. Staff members attempted toalleviate this effect by using portable lighting.

    New lighting: reception and waiting area The recessed indirect luminaires (type A) in the central

    part of the waiting area have a much wider light distribu-tion that reduces shadows compared to the parabolic luminaires used in the original lighting.

    Wall washers (type B) placed near the walls of the waitingarea and behind the reception desk light the walls evenly.

    Downlights (type C) laid out to conform to the curve of thereception counter provide additional illumination for reading and writing on medical forms.

    The torchiere was removed from the space. Although thetable lamps are not turned on, they have not beenremoved because they provide a home-like appearance in the space.

  • 5Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Lighting Research Center

    Patients responseDELTA used questionnaires to assess patients perceptions of the waiting area at Saratoga Medical Associates compared

    to waiting areas of other medical facilities they had visited. Survey results (see below) suggest that the change in lighting

    did produce a small improvement in opinion, since slightly more people considered it better and slightly fewer considered it

    worse than other waiting areas.

    Reception and Area Total LPD* ASHRAE/IESNA* NY State Energy Conservation Waiting Area (ft2) (W/ft2) Allowed LPD Construction Code 1991**

    (W/ft2) (W/ft2)

    Original lighting 1142 1.2 1.8 2.4

    New lighting 1142 1.1 1.8 2.4

    Statements about the lighting waiting area Original lighting New lighting(n = 60) (n = 84)

    Overall, the lighting in this waiting area is comfortable 83% 85%

    The lighting of the reception desk is good 83% 88%

    There is plenty of light in the waiting area for reading magazines 87% 95%

    The lighting makes the waiting area look attractive 84% 75%

    The lighting of the waiting area is relaxing 76% 61%

    People look good under this lighting 83% 77%

    The lighting in this waiting room is depressing 7% 7%

    The luminaires are uncomfortably bright 17% 24%

    The lights sometimes flicker 7% 6%

    Energy Analysis

    * See Abbreviations on page 13** Applicable in New York State only, on a whole-building basis

    1 ft2 = 0.093 m2; 1 W/ft2 = 10.76 W/m2

    Compared to other health care waiting areas, the lighting in this waiting area is: Lighting Much better Better About the same Worse Much worse

    Original (n = 60) 10% 35% 38% 13% 4%

    New (n = 84) 10% 45% 36% 9% 0%

    The table below shows the percentage of patients who agree with the statements about the lighting in the waiting area.

    More patients considered the space to be brighter with the new lighting, but fewer thought it was relaxing. An increased

    number of patients also found the luminaires too bright.This probably occurred because although there is no direct view of

    the lamp, the reflector in the luminaire is large and becomes a light source in itself, which can be seen from anywhere in

    the waiting area.

    Receptionists ResponseDELTA interviewed the office manager responsible for the reception and waiting area and one of the receptionists. Their

    comments indicated the original lighting in the reception area provided sufficient light in some areas and not enough in

    others. Staff regarded the original lighting in the waiting area as slightly better than in other doctors offices, but still consid-

    ered it dim and patchy. Overall, the new lighting in these spaces was considered brighter, and, therefore, an improvement.

  • 6Lighting Research Center

    Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Examination rooms

    80 cd/m2(54)

    115 cd/m2(136)

    42 fc(6)

    22 fc(36)

    38 fc(17)

    31 fc(40)

    1450 cd/m2(2000)

    DELTA retrofitted and evaluated two examinationrooms: a room with an arched east-facing window

    and a slightly smaller one without a window. Both

    rooms have gray vinyl floors (60% reflectance) and

    off-white walls (90% reflectance). The rooms are fur-

    nished with a small sink, storage cabinet, disposal

    bins, an examination table, a chair, and a stool for

    the physician. The examination rooms are con-

    nected to the nurses station (see page 8).

    New lighting: examination room with window(Original lighting same as windowless room; see page 7)

    Two ceiling-mounted indirect/direct luminaires (type D) are con-trolled by a dimmer (replacing the original switch by the door).

    Wall-mounted, swing-arm examination luminaire (type E) is fittedwith incandescent and circular fluorescent lamps that can be indi-vidually switched (not shown in photograph).

    Perspective of examination room with window(Measurements of original lighting shown in parentheses. Type E examination luminaire turned off for all measurements.)

    See page 12 for Specifications

    D E

    NORTH

    Examination Room with Window

    Energy Analysis

    * See Abbreviations on page 13** Compact fluorescent and incandescent lamps both on in examination light

    *** Applicable in New York State only, on a whole-building basis 1 ft2 = 0.093 m2; 1 W/ft2 = 10.76 W/m2

    Examination Room Area Total LPD* Total LPD* ASHRAE/IESNA* NY State Energy Conservation with Window (ft2) Examination Examination Allowed LPD Construction Code 1991***

    Light Off (W/ft2) Light On (W/ft2) (W/ft2) (W/ft2)

    Original lighting 97 0.9 1.5 1.6 2.4

    New lighting 97 1.4 2.2** 1.6 2.4

    New Lighting

  • 7Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    75 cd/m2(115)

    100 cd/m2(48)

    On perforatedshield1620

    cd/m2

    On reflector1700 cd/m2

    On lamp5565 cd/m2

    28 fc(36)

    35 fc(43)

    33 fc(35)

    No obstructions37 fc(37)

    With person in front of examinationtable30 fc (20)

    New lighting: windowless examination room

    Two ceiling-mounted indirect/direct luminaires(type F) are controlled by adimmer (replacingthe original switchby the door).

    Wall-mounted,swing-arm examination luminaire (type E)is fitted withincandescent andcircular fluorescentlamps that can beindividuallyswitched.

    Perspective of windowless examination room(Measurements of original lighting shown in parentheses. Original luminaires shown inblack dashed lines. Type E examination lumi-naire turned off for all measurements.)

    See page 12 for Specifications

    E F

    NORTH

    Original lighting: windowlessexaminationroom

    Recessed 2' x 4'parabolic luminaire were operated from a switch by the door.

    Moveable floorexaminationlight used an incandescentlamp (not shown inphotograph).

    I dont like going in there, [but the dimmable lighting] is useful for patients experiencing migraines. A nurse, about

    the windowless examination room

    Windowless Examination Room

    Energy Analysis

    * See Abbreviations on page 13** Compact fluorescent and incandescent lamps both on in examination light

    *** Applicable in New York State only, on a whole-building basis 1 ft2 = 0.093 m2; 1 W/ft2 = 10.76 W/m2

    Windowless Area Total LPD* Total LPD* ASHRAE/IESNA* NY State Energy Conservation Examination Room (ft2) Examination Examination Allowed LPD Construction Code 1991***

    Light Off (W/ft2) Light On (W/ft2) (W/ft2) (W/ft2)

    Original lighting 84 1.0 1.8 1.6 2.4

    New lighting 84 1.2 2.2** 1.6 2.4

    Lighting Research Center

    New Lighting

  • 8Lighting Research Center

    Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Examination rooms (continued)

    Doctors and Nurses OpinionsDELTA interviewed two doctors and two nurses who regularly use the examination rooms. They generally preferred the

    examination room with the window over the windowless one, mainly because it was bigger and brighter. However one of the

    doctors reported that the room with the window became uncomfortably warm during the summer months. The windowless

    room was considered claustrophobic.

    The original lighting had little effect on the staff opinions of the room with the window because there was usually plenty of

    daylight and the electric lighting was not used very often. However, the windowless examination room was considered insuffi-

    ciently illuminated by the original lighting. One of the doctors commented that a moveable examination light was needed for

    detailed work, such as the removal of splinters.

    The doctors and nurses specifically commented on two features of the new lighting in the two examination rooms: the dim-

    ming capability (considered very useful) and the tendency of the examination light swing-arm mechanism to pinch fingers. In

    the windowless examination room, the examination table was repositioned because the wall-mounted examination luminaire

    was useful for gynecological examinations and other special tasks.

    For general patient visits, however, the windowless room was considered insufficiently bright. One doctor went so far as to

    tell the staff to avoid using this room whenever possible. Since the light levels for the original and new lighting were approxi-

    mately equal, DELTA believes that the negative responses may have two causes. The original lightings parabolic luminaires

    allow a view of the lamp at some angles, perhaps adding to the increased perception of brightness. Also, higher color tem-

    perature light is often considered brighter; the color temperature of the new lighting appears to be much lower than the origi-

    nal lighting because the type F luminaires bounce light off an off-white reflector and then cream-colored walls, giving the light

    a yellowish tinge. The color difference is particularly noticeable because the examination room immediately adjacent has the

    original lighting.

    The nurses station is an open space within a corridor with doors to examination rooms and

    doctors offices. The nurses do most of their work in

    this area while sitting or standing at a countertop.

    Wall cabinets are located above the countertop.

    The same blue-green carpet and light green vinyl

    wallpaper as in the reception and waiting area

    cover the floor and walls of the nurses station.

    Very acceptable, very good I should say. A nurse, about the new lighting

    Nurses Station

    See page 12 forSpecifications

    G H I

    NORTH

    New Lighting

  • 9Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Lighting Research Center

    Nurses Station Area Total LPD* ASHRAE/IESNA* NY State Energy Conservation (ft2) (W/ft2) Allowed LPD Construction Code 1991**

    (W/ft2) (W/ft2)Original lighting 287 0.9 1.8 2.4

    New lighting 287 1.1 1.8 2.4

    Energy Analysis

    * See Abbreviations on page 13** Applicable in New York State only, on a whole-building basis

    1 ft2 = 0.093 m2; 1 W/ft2 = 10.76 W/m2

    73 cd/m2(108)

    83 cd/m2(50)

    42 fc(28)

    270 fc(9) 116 fc(41)

    60 fc(38)

    18 fc(29)

    45 fc(50)

    33 fc(41)

    Above luminaire490 cd/m2 (170, on luminaire)

    89 cd/m2(31)

    Betweenluminaires280 cd/m2(31)

    1-6

    9-2

    Perspective of nurses station(Measurements of original lighting shown in parentheses. Original luminaires shown in black dashed lines.)

    Original lighting: nurses station Recessed 2' x 4' parabolic luminaires. The light distribu-

    tion from these luminaires and their wide spacing pro-vided little light on the ceiling and upper parts of thewalls. Of particular note were the strong shadows underthe wall cabinets and on the work surface.

    New lighting: nurses station Ceiling-mounted luminaires (type G) visually separate the corridor

    area from the nurses station. Pendant direct/indirect luminaries (type H) in the nurses station

    provide light directly to the work area and distribute light to theceiling and walls, making the space look brighter and more uniformly lighted.

    Two under-cabinet luminaires (type I) provide task lighting on the countertop.

    Nurses opinionsDELTA interviewed the two nurses who regularly

    use the station. Neither had negative commentsabout the original lighting. They thought that therewas sufficient light for them to do their work andthat there were no poorly lighted locations. As forthe new lighting, one of them thought it was verygood. The other thought it was a little dim on thecountertop; however, when the under-cabinet lumi-naires were pointed out, the nurse liked the newlighting better. When they were initially installed,one person thought the type H pendants seemedto be mounted too low, giving the impression thatit was necessary to duck ones head when walkingunderneath them. Overall, the new lighting wasconsidered very good but not much of animprovement over the original lighting.

  • 10Lighting Research Center

    Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Doctors office

    154 cd/m2(106)

    154 cd/m2(106)

    (718 cd/m2)

    500 cd/m2

    200 cd/m2

    81 fc(139)

    35 fc(46)

    130 cd/m2(98)

    1-6

    9-2

    Perspective of doctors office(Measurements of original lighting shown in parentheses.Original luminaires shown in black dashed lines.)

    Original lighting: doctors office Recessed 2' x 4' parabolic were operated from a switch by

    the door.

    New lighting: doctors office Two pendant direct/indirect luminaires (type H) are controlled by

    an occupancy sensor with manual override (replacing the originalswitch by the door).

    DELTA retrofitted and evaluated the lighting in one of the doctors offices. The corner office

    has two windows, one facing east and the other

    south. The doctor who occupies this office suffers

    from Seasonal Affective Disorder (or winter

    depression), so he prefers spaces with abundant

    light. The floor is covered with the same blue-green

    carpet used elsewhere in the office and the walls

    are painted off-white.

    See page 12 for SpecificationsHNORTH

    I love my office!

    A doctor, about the new lighting in his office

    New Lighting

  • 2 11

    Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Lighting Research Center Lighting Research Center

    Specifications

    Lighting Research Center

    2 Project ProfileLighting Objectives

    3 Lighting and Control Features3 Reception and Waiting Area

    Contents

    In 1999, Saratoga Medical Associates moved into their new suiteof medical offices on the third floor of a modern building in

    Saratoga Springs, New York. The suite contains a reception and

    waiting area, doctors offices, examination rooms, nurses stations,

    treatment rooms, and administrative offices.

    Patients arrive to the reception and waiting area; then meet with

    nurses or doctors in the examination rooms. Nurses have worksta-

    tions and the doctors have private offices.

    DELTA conducted an evaluation of the existing lighting in five

    spaces within the suite: the reception and waiting area, one nurses

    station, two examination rooms, and one doctors office. DELTA

    then installed and evaluated new lighting in those same spaces.

    This publication provides the results of the two evaluations.

    Lighting Objectives for New Lighting Provide good visibility and visual comfort

    Enhance visual appeal

    Eliminate the need for supplementary lighting in the reception

    and waiting area

    Utilize energy-efficient technologies

    Allow flexibility of light levels in the examination rooms

    Project Profile

    Project Evaluation6 Examination Rooms

    8 Nurses Station

    10 Doctors Office

    11 Project Evaluation12 Specifications13 Methodology14 Lessons Learned

    A

    B

    C

    D

    E

    F

    G

    H

    I

    MaintenanceBallasts failed in several different

    luminaires at a rate that was greater

    than expected. DELTA checked the

    wiring of luminaires in the building.

    Although one failure was caused by

    wiring problems in a luminaire, no

    clear reason was found for the rest of

    the ballast failures.

    To meet the lighting objectives, the

    new lighting required the use of differ-

    ent types of luminaires and lamps. The

    facilites manager did not consider it a

    problem to stock multiple lamp types.

    Occupant ResponseSaratoga Medical Associates moved

    to their new building two years ago,

    and were generally satisfied with the

    original lighting. They thought it was an

    improvement over their earlier facility.

    Staff liked the new installations occu-

    pancy sensors, examination lights and

    undercabinet lights, but some people

    thought there was too much light in

    waiting area and not enough light in

    exam rooms. The new condition did

    increase the lighting power density to

    a slight extent overall, but there was a

    slight increase in satisfaction as well.

    Energy ImpactThe lighting systems in both the origi-

    nal and the new installations use less

    energy than the maximum standards

    delineated in the energy standard

    ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 (1999). Excluding

    any use of examination lights, these

    systems save $320-470 per year due to

    reduced energy costs and power

    demand in the five rooms alone (see

    chart at right). The savings would be

    greater if occupancy sensors and dim-

    ming were taken into account.

    Environmental ImpactReduced energy use will result in

    lower annual power plant emissions

    (see table below).

    Reduced Pollution Compared to System Operating at ASHRAE/IESNAMaximum Lighting Power Density

    SO2 NOX CO2lbs kg lbs kg lbs kg

    Annual savings, Original 32 14 12 5 4,645 2,109

    Annual savings, New 22 10 8 4 3,196 1,451

    Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is associated with visible pollution (haze) and acid rain. Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are one of the main causes of ground level ozone (smog) and acid rain. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a possible contributor to future climate changes such as global warming.

    $0

    $100

    $200

    $300

    $400

    $500

    $600

    $700

    $800

    ASHRAE/IESNAMaximum Allowance

    SMA New

    Potential Demand Charge

    Energy Cost

    Annual Lighting Energy Cost Comparison Saratoga Medical Associates (SMA)

    $470 Annual Savings

    $320 Annual Savings

    $900

    $1,000

    Annu

    al E

    nerg

    y Co

    st

    SMAOriginal

    Doctors opinionsIn an interview, the doctor occupying the office expressed the view that the original lighting was not bright enough on a

    cloudy day. The new lighting, in turn, did not seem as bright to him during the day, compared with the original lighting.

    However, the new lighting seem much brighter after dark, and he appreciated this fact. DELTA believes that the room appeared

    that much brighter because the new luminaires provided light not only to the task area but to the walls and ceiling as well. He

    also liked the occupancy sensor because it made him feel that he was saving energy.

    Doctors Office Area Total LPD* ASHRAE/IESNA* NY State Energy Conservation (ft2) (W/ft2) Allowed LPD Construction Code 1991**

    (W/ft2) (W/ft2)Original lighting 100 0.9 1.5 2.4

    New lighting, without occupancy sensor 100 1.2 1.5 2.4

    Energy Analysis

    * See Abbreviations on page 13** Applicable in New York State only, on a whole-building basis

    1 ft2 = 0.093 m2; 1 W/ft2 = 10.76 W/m2

    Recessed indirect luminaire, white finish

    with perforated steel shields and white

    acrylic diffusers, 2' W x 4' L (610 mm x

    1.2 m), two linear fluorescent lamps in

    cross section.

    Lamps: (2) F28T5/835

    Ballast: Electronic, program start

    ballast, high power factor (HPF)

    Wattage: 62 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Recessed lensed wall washer,

    7" aperture (180 mm), with two compact

    fluorescent lamps in cross section.

    Lamps: (2) CFT18W/G24d/835

    Ballast: Electronic ballast, rapid start

    (RS), HPF

    Wattage: 38 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Recessed lensed downlight luminaire,

    7" aperture (180mm), with two compact

    fluorescent lamps in cross section.

    Lamps: (2) CFT13W/GX23/830

    Ballast: Magnetic ballast

    Wattage: 33 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Ceiling-mounted indirect/direct lumi-

    naire, 1' W x 4' L (300 mm x 1.2 m),

    with two linear fluorescent lamps in

    cross section within a perforated shield

    and dimming ballast.

    Lamps: (2) F32T8/835

    Ballast: Dimming electronic ballast

    Wattage: 67 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Wall-mounted, swing-arm examination

    luminaire, white finish, 4'-2" (1.3 m)

    extension reach, with 7' (2.1 m) cord

    and plug.

    Lamps: (1) 60A19 and (1) FC8T9/830

    Ballast: (Information not available)

    Wattage: 82 W, total (excluding ballast

    wattage)

    Ceiling-mounted indirect/direct

    luminaire, white powder coat finish, 2'

    W x 2' L (610 mm x 610 mm), with three

    linear fluorescent lamps in cross

    section within perforated shield and

    dimming ballast.

    Lamps: (3) F17T8/835

    Ballast: Dimming electronic ballast

    Wattage: 50 W per 3-lamp dimming

    ballast

    Ceiling-mounted luminaire with white

    acrylic diffuser, 16" diameter (410mm),

    4" (102 mm) projection below ceiling.

    Lamp: (1) CFS28W/GR10q-4/835

    Ballast: Electronic program start, HPF

    Wattage: 29 W per 1-lamp ballast

    Pendant direct/indirect luminaire, white

    finish, 8" W x 4' L x 2.5" D (200 mm x

    1.2 m x 60 mm), steel cable suspension

    system with coiled power cord, two linear

    fluorescent lamps in cross-section.

    Lamps: (2) F28T5/835

    Ballast: Electronic, program start, HPF

    Wattage: 62 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Under-cabinet luminaire, white finish

    with prismatic acrylic diffuser, 1.5" D x

    3' L (40 mm x 0.9 m), one linear fluores-

    cent lamp in cross section, with integral

    rocker switch.

    Lamps: (1) F25T8/835

    Ballast: (Information not available)

    Wattage: 25 W (excluding ballast

    wattage)

    12

  • 2 11

    Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Lighting Research Center Lighting Research Center

    Specifications

    Lighting Research Center

    2 Project ProfileLighting Objectives

    3 Lighting and Control Features3 Reception and Waiting Area

    Contents

    In 1999, Saratoga Medical Associates moved into their new suiteof medical offices on the third floor of a modern building in

    Saratoga Springs, New York. The suite contains a reception and

    waiting area, doctors offices, examination rooms, nurses stations,

    treatment rooms, and administrative offices.

    Patients arrive to the reception and waiting area; then meet with

    nurses or doctors in the examination rooms. Nurses have worksta-

    tions and the doctors have private offices.

    DELTA conducted an evaluation of the existing lighting in five

    spaces within the suite: the reception and waiting area, one nurses

    station, two examination rooms, and one doctors office. DELTA

    then installed and evaluated new lighting in those same spaces.

    This publication provides the results of the two evaluations.

    Lighting Objectives for New Lighting Provide good visibility and visual comfort

    Enhance visual appeal

    Eliminate the need for supplementary lighting in the reception

    and waiting area

    Utilize energy-efficient technologies

    Allow flexibility of light levels in the examination rooms

    Project Profile

    Project Evaluation6 Examination Rooms

    8 Nurses Station

    10 Doctors Office

    11 Project Evaluation12 Specifications13 Methodology14 Lessons Learned

    A

    B

    C

    D

    E

    F

    G

    H

    I

    MaintenanceBallasts failed in several different

    luminaires at a rate that was greater

    than expected. DELTA checked the

    wiring of luminaires in the building.

    Although one failure was caused by

    wiring problems in a luminaire, no

    clear reason was found for the rest of

    the ballast failures.

    To meet the lighting objectives, the

    new lighting required the use of differ-

    ent types of luminaires and lamps. The

    facilites manager did not consider it a

    problem to stock multiple lamp types.

    Occupant ResponseSaratoga Medical Associates moved

    to their new building two years ago,

    and were generally satisfied with the

    original lighting. They thought it was an

    improvement over their earlier facility.

    Staff liked the new installations occu-

    pancy sensors, examination lights and

    undercabinet lights, but some people

    thought there was too much light in

    waiting area and not enough light in

    exam rooms. The new condition did

    increase the lighting power density to

    a slight extent overall, but there was a

    slight increase in satisfaction as well.

    Energy ImpactThe lighting systems in both the origi-

    nal and the new installations use less

    energy than the maximum standards

    delineated in the energy standard

    ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1 (1999). Excluding

    any use of examination lights, these

    systems save $320-470 per year due to

    reduced energy costs and power

    demand in the five rooms alone (see

    chart at right). The savings would be

    greater if occupancy sensors and dim-

    ming were taken into account.

    Environmental ImpactReduced energy use will result in

    lower annual power plant emissions

    (see table below).

    Reduced Pollution Compared to System Operating at ASHRAE/IESNAMaximum Lighting Power Density

    SO2 NOX CO2lbs kg lbs kg lbs kg

    Annual savings, Original 32 14 12 5 4,645 2,109

    Annual savings, New 22 10 8 4 3,196 1,451

    Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is associated with visible pollution (haze) and acid rain. Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are one of the main causes of ground level ozone (smog) and acid rain. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a possible contributor to future climate changes such as global warming.

    $0

    $100

    $200

    $300

    $400

    $500

    $600

    $700

    $800

    ASHRAE/IESNAMaximum Allowance

    SMA New

    Potential Demand Charge

    Energy Cost

    Annual Lighting Energy Cost Comparison Saratoga Medical Associates (SMA)

    $470 Annual Savings

    $320 Annual Savings

    $900

    $1,000

    Annu

    al E

    nerg

    y Co

    st

    SMAOriginal

    Doctors opinionsIn an interview, the doctor occupying the office expressed the view that the original lighting was not bright enough on a

    cloudy day. The new lighting, in turn, did not seem as bright to him during the day, compared with the original lighting.

    However, the new lighting seem much brighter after dark, and he appreciated this fact. DELTA believes that the room appeared

    that much brighter because the new luminaires provided light not only to the task area but to the walls and ceiling as well. He

    also liked the occupancy sensor because it made him feel that he was saving energy.

    Doctors Office Area Total LPD* ASHRAE/IESNA* NY State Energy Conservation (ft2) (W/ft2) Allowed LPD Construction Code 1991**

    (W/ft2) (W/ft2)Original lighting 100 0.9 1.5 2.4

    New lighting, without occupancy sensor 100 1.2 1.5 2.4

    Energy Analysis

    * See Abbreviations on page 13** Applicable in New York State only, on a whole-building basis

    1 ft2 = 0.093 m2; 1 W/ft2 = 10.76 W/m2

    Recessed indirect luminaire, white finish

    with perforated steel shields and white

    acrylic diffusers, 2' W x 4' L (610 mm x

    1.2 m), two linear fluorescent lamps in

    cross section.

    Lamps: (2) F28T5/835

    Ballast: Electronic, program start

    ballast, high power factor (HPF)

    Wattage: 62 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Recessed lensed wall washer,

    7" aperture (180 mm), with two compact

    fluorescent lamps in cross section.

    Lamps: (2) CFT18W/G24d/835

    Ballast: Electronic ballast, rapid start

    (RS), HPF

    Wattage: 38 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Recessed lensed downlight luminaire,

    7" aperture (180mm), with two compact

    fluorescent lamps in cross section.

    Lamps: (2) CFT13W/GX23/830

    Ballast: Magnetic ballast

    Wattage: 33 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Ceiling-mounted indirect/direct lumi-

    naire, 1' W x 4' L (300 mm x 1.2 m),

    with two linear fluorescent lamps in

    cross section within a perforated shield

    and dimming ballast.

    Lamps: (2) F32T8/835

    Ballast: Dimming electronic ballast

    Wattage: 67 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Wall-mounted, swing-arm examination

    luminaire, white finish, 4'-2" (1.3 m)

    extension reach, with 7' (2.1 m) cord

    and plug.

    Lamps: (1) 60A19 and (1) FC8T9/830

    Ballast: (Information not available)

    Wattage: 82 W, total (excluding ballast

    wattage)

    Ceiling-mounted indirect/direct

    luminaire, white powder coat finish, 2'

    W x 2' L (610 mm x 610 mm), with three

    linear fluorescent lamps in cross

    section within perforated shield and

    dimming ballast.

    Lamps: (3) F17T8/835

    Ballast: Dimming electronic ballast

    Wattage: 50 W per 3-lamp dimming

    ballast

    Ceiling-mounted luminaire with white

    acrylic diffuser, 16" diameter (410mm),

    4" (102 mm) projection below ceiling.

    Lamp: (1) CFS28W/GR10q-4/835

    Ballast: Electronic program start, HPF

    Wattage: 29 W per 1-lamp ballast

    Pendant direct/indirect luminaire, white

    finish, 8" W x 4' L x 2.5" D (200 mm x

    1.2 m x 60 mm), steel cable suspension

    system with coiled power cord, two linear

    fluorescent lamps in cross-section.

    Lamps: (2) F28T5/835

    Ballast: Electronic, program start, HPF

    Wattage: 62 W per 2-lamp ballast

    Under-cabinet luminaire, white finish

    with prismatic acrylic diffuser, 1.5" D x

    3' L (40 mm x 0.9 m), one linear fluores-

    cent lamp in cross section, with integral

    rocker switch.

    Lamps: (1) F25T8/835

    Ballast: (Information not available)

    Wattage: 25 W (excluding ballast

    wattage)

    12

  • Lessons LearnedMedical patients may have higher priorities than the appearance of lighting.Despite the fact that the new lighting in the reception and waiting area followed guidelines

    recommended by lighting professionals such as removing the cave effect, increasing

    illuminance uniformity, and decreasing shadows on the floor, there was only a slight

    improvement in the patients perceptions of the space.

    For people who perform high stress tasks, such as doctors andnurses, the lighting of the task is more important than the lighting of the space.Before designing lighting for a space, it is important to determine the visual difficulties of

    the tasks people have at hand. Doctors and nurses found it difficult to carry out some

    tasks in an examination room, although they found the lighting useful for other activities

    such as treating patients suffering from migraines.

    Flexibility is valued in spaces where there are a wide variety of visual tasks.Both doctors and nurses commented on the value of having dimming available in the

    examination rooms, which enhances the flexibility of the lighting.

    Lighting specifiers should assess the occupants satisfaction about a space prior to implementing a lighting retrofit.Occupants will resist change if their level of satisfaction about their environment is high,

    regardless of whether the lighting conforms to what may be considered better lighting

    practice by lighting professionals.

    DELTA Portfolio, Lighting Case StudiesVolume 3, Issue 3Community Care PhysiciansSite Sponsor: New York State Energy

    Research and Development Authority(NYSERDA)

    Equipment Donors: Edison Price; FocalPoint; Selux

    December 2001Program Director: Sandra VsconezEvaluation Leader: Peter BoyceProject Assistants: Jennifer Brons, Carlos InclnReviewers: Russ Leslie, Mark ReaEditor: Julie BlairTechnical Assistance: Jean Paul Freyssinier, Zengwei Fu,

    Francisco Garza, Chao Ling, Milena Simeonova, John Tokarczyk

    Illustrations: John Tokarczyk

    CREDITSCommunity Care Physicians: Robert Kleinbauer,

    Facilities Manager; Lil Kirkpatrick, Office AdministratorNYSERDA: Marsha WaltonArchitect: COTLER Architecture & Planning, PCElectrical Contractor, New Installation: A. R. Fogartys

    Add Electric Inc.Lighting Design: Lighting Research Center Luminaire Manufacturers: Types A, D, F: Focal Point;

    Types B, C: Edison Price; Types E, I: Alkco; Types G, H: Selux

    Occupancy Sensor: The Watt StopperWallbox Dimmers: Ariadni ControlsDELTA Portfolio Graphic Design and Production:

    The Type & Design Center, Inc.Photographers: Randall Perry Photography (interior);

    Carlos Incln (exterior)

    DELTA MEMBERSConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.New York State Energy Research and Development

    AuthorityNortheast Utilities SystemLighting Research Center

    For publications ordering information contact:

    Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy, New York 12180-3590(518) 687-7100e-mail: [email protected] www.lrc.rpi.edu

    Copyright 2001, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Allrights reserved. Neither the entire publication nor any ofthe information contained herein may be duplicated orexcerpted in any way in any other publication, database, orother medium and may not be reproduced without expresswritten permission of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.Making copies of all or part of this publication for any pur-pose other than for undistributed personal use is a violationof United States copyright law.

    ISSN 1075-3966 Printed on recycled paper

    14

    Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical AssociatesHealth Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Lighting Research Center

    SARATOGA MEDICAL ASSOCIATESSaratoga Springs, New York

    Site Sponsor: New York StateEnergy Research andDevelopment Authority

    HEA

    LTH CARE FACILITIES

    PortfolioDemonstration and Evaluation of Lighting Technologies and Applications Lighting Case Studies

    Volum

    e 3Issue 3Photometric Measurements

    DELTA performed illuminance and luminance

    measurements for all spaces after the lighting

    had been on for at least 30 minutes and the

    luminaires were operating at full light output. For

    the doctors office, these measurements were

    taken with the blinds closed on both windows. In

    the examination room with the window, no blinds

    were available. Illuminance and luminance

    measurements were made during the day with

    the electric lighting both on and off, in order to

    show the contribution of the electric lighting

    alone.

    Surveys Questionnaires were used to obtain patients

    opinions about the lighting in the reception and

    waiting area. DELTA collected questionnaires

    from 60 patients for the original lighting and 84

    patients for the new lighting. Structured inter-

    views were used to obtain the opinions of doc-

    tors, nurses, and receptionists.

    Energy AnalysisTo analyze annual electrical cost savings,

    DELTA interviewed the buildings facilities man-

    ager, who estimated hours of use and reported

    energy rates charged by the local utility.

    Multiplying daily hours of use by 50 weeks per

    year (DELTAs assumption) yielded just over 2600

    annual hours of use. These hours were multiplied

    by the wattages of both the original and new

    lighting. These calculations excluded examina-

    tion task lights, as these are used only when

    needed.

    DELTA compared these energy use estimates

    with ASHRAE-IESNA 90.1 (1999) standard power

    densities for lighting in hospital/health care build-

    ings (space-by-space method). These LPD

    values were multiplied by the total area of the

    rooms and the hours listed previously.

    Subsequent electrical cost savings were calcu-

    lated using actual rates charged to the facility of

    7.3 per kWh and a monthly demand charge of

    $8.32 per kW (assuming the lighting is on at the

    point of peak monthly building demand).

    Environmental AnalysisDELTA based the environmental impact figures

    in the table on page 11 on the U.S.

    Environmental Protection Agencys September

    1996 publication, Conservation News Online.

    This document is available online at

    http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/.

    AbbreviationsAbbreviations mentioned in this report include:

    LPD = Lighting Power Density

    ASHRAE = American Society of Heating,

    Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

    Engineers, Inc.

    IESNA = Illuminating Engineering Society of

    North America

    MethodologyThis section gives details about testing methods and assumptions used in this publication.

    Lighting Research Center13

  • Lessons LearnedMedical patients may have higher priorities than the appearance of lighting.Despite the fact that the new lighting in the reception and waiting area followed guidelines

    recommended by lighting professionals such as removing the cave effect, increasing

    illuminance uniformity, and decreasing shadows on the floor, there was only a slight

    improvement in the patients perceptions of the space.

    For people who perform high stress tasks, such as doctors andnurses, the lighting of the task is more important than the lighting of the space.Before designing lighting for a space, it is important to determine the visual difficulties of

    the tasks people have at hand. Doctors and nurses found it difficult to carry out some

    tasks in an examination room, although they found the lighting useful for other activities

    such as treating patients suffering from migraines.

    Flexibility is valued in spaces where there are a wide variety of visual tasks.Both doctors and nurses commented on the value of having dimming available in the

    examination rooms, which enhances the flexibility of the lighting.

    Lighting specifiers should assess the occupants satisfaction about a space prior to implementing a lighting retrofit.Occupants will resist change if their level of satisfaction about their environment is high,

    regardless of whether the lighting conforms to what may be considered better lighting

    practice by lighting professionals.

    DELTA Portfolio, Lighting Case StudiesVolume 3, Issue 3Community Care PhysiciansSite Sponsor: New York State Energy

    Research and Development Authority(NYSERDA)

    Equipment Donors: Edison Price; FocalPoint; Selux

    December 2001Program Director: Sandra VsconezEvaluation Leader: Peter BoyceProject Assistants: Jennifer Brons, Carlos InclnReviewers: Russ Leslie, Mark ReaEditor: Julie BlairTechnical Assistance: Jean Paul Freyssinier, Zengwei Fu,

    Francisco Garza, Chao Ling, Milena Simeonova, John Tokarczyk

    Illustrations: John Tokarczyk

    CREDITSCommunity Care Physicians: Robert Kleinbauer,

    Facilities Manager; Lil Kirkpatrick, Office AdministratorNYSERDA: Marsha WaltonArchitect: COTLER Architecture & Planning, PCElectrical Contractor, New Installation: A. R. Fogartys

    Add Electric Inc.Lighting Design: Lighting Research Center Luminaire Manufacturers: Types A, D, F: Focal Point;

    Types B, C: Edison Price; Types E, I: Alkco; Types G, H: Selux

    Occupancy Sensor: The Watt StopperWallbox Dimmers: Ariadni ControlsDELTA Portfolio Graphic Design and Production:

    The Type & Design Center, Inc.Photographers: Randall Perry Photography (interior);

    Carlos Incln (exterior)

    DELTA MEMBERSConsolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.New York State Energy Research and Development

    AuthorityNortheast Utilities SystemLighting Research Center

    For publications ordering information contact:

    Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroy, New York 12180-3590(518) 687-7100e-mail: [email protected] www.lrc.rpi.edu

    Copyright 2001, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Allrights reserved. Neither the entire publication nor any ofthe information contained herein may be duplicated orexcerpted in any way in any other publication, database, orother medium and may not be reproduced without expresswritten permission of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.Making copies of all or part of this publication for any pur-pose other than for undistributed personal use is a violationof United States copyright law.

    ISSN 1075-3966 Printed on recycled paper

    14

    Health Care Lighting Saratoga Medical AssociatesHealth Care Lighting Saratoga Medical Associates

    Lighting Research Center

    SARATOGA MEDICAL ASSOCIATESSaratoga Springs, New York

    Site Sponsor: New York StateEnergy Research andDevelopment Authority

    HEA

    LTH CARE FACILITIES

    PortfolioDemonstration and Evaluation of Lighting Technologies and Applications Lighting Case Studies

    Volum

    e 3Issue 3Photometric Measurements

    DELTA performed illuminance and luminance

    measurements for all spaces after the lighting

    had been on for at least 30 minutes and the

    luminaires were operating at full light output. For

    the doctors office, these measurements were

    taken with the blinds closed on both windows. In

    the examination room with the window, no blinds

    were available. Illuminance and luminance

    measurements were made during the day with

    the electric lighting both on and off, in order to

    show the contribution of the electric lighting

    alone.

    Surveys Questionnaires were used to obtain patients

    opinions about the lighting in the reception and

    waiting area. DELTA collected questionnaires

    from 60 patients for the original lighting and 84

    patients for the new lighting. Structured inter-

    views were used to obtain the opinions of doc-

    tors, nurses, and receptionists.

    Energy AnalysisTo analyze annual electrical cost savings,

    DELTA interviewed the buildings facilities man-

    ager, who estimated hours of use and reported

    energy rates charged by the local utility.

    Multiplying daily hours of use by 50 weeks per

    year (DELTAs assumption) yielded just over 2600

    annual hours of use. These hours were multiplied

    by the wattages of both the original and new

    lighting. These calculations excluded examina-

    tion task lights, as these are used only when

    needed.

    DELTA compared these energy use estimates

    with ASHRAE-IESNA 90.1 (1999) standard power

    densities for lighting in hospital/health care build-

    ings (space-by-space method). These LPD

    values were multiplied by the total area of the

    rooms and the hours listed previously.

    Subsequent electrical cost savings were calcu-

    lated using actual rates charged to the facility of

    7.3 per kWh and a monthly demand charge of

    $8.32 per kW (assuming the lighting is on at the

    point of peak monthly building demand).

    Environmental AnalysisDELTA based the environmental impact figures

    in the table on page 11 on the U.S.

    Environmental Protection Agencys September

    1996 publication, Conservation News Online.

    This document is available online at

    http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/.

    AbbreviationsAbbreviations mentioned in this report include:

    LPD = Lighting Power Density

    ASHRAE = American Society of Heating,

    Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

    Engineers, Inc.

    IESNA = Illuminating Engineering Society of

    North America

    MethodologyThis section gives details about testing methods and assumptions used in this publication.

    Lighting Research Center13